A group of anti abortion democrats might block the health care bill if it funds abortions with taxpayer money. link but don't hold your breath.

and yes, it has finally been admitted that abortion etc is included in the health care bill as "reproductive health care".link.

Of course, the NYTimes spilled the beans when they asked Peter Singer to tell us why untermensch who rate low on the "quality of life" scale could be denied care.
The fact that he uses Sutent as an example of an expensive drug that could be withheld is a major factual error on his part, as I point out here...

and the a***** who cricized me in the comments once wrote that mothers positive for HIV should not be given anti virals (he was working in South Africa at the time) leading another physician to point out that the couple million that could save their children is not a lot of money compared to the billions South Africa spends on their military...

Secondhandsmoke points out that Oregon already keeps expensive medical care from some people, but will pay for their assisted suicide drugs.

And California right not mandates that physicians discuss "ALL" options to those who have a terminal illness.
Not only could this force physicians to discuss euthanasia which is bad medicine (such a suggestion could be viewed as an "okay to kill yourself" or even a mandate to one who is depressed) but as this letter points out, it does not define what is a terminal illness...

American medical news defends physicians right not to be involved with deathmaking: It is not their "private" conscience but based on ethics of major religions (and the Hippocratic oath also, of course, but modern "ethicists" don't recognize that oath as meaningful.)

The Ninth Court in the US says pharmacists can't refuse to sell the morning after pill.

The new rules do not aim to suppress, target, or single out in any way the practice of any religion because of its religious content. Though the procedural posture presents a sparse record, that record sufficiently reflects that the object of the rules was to ensure safe and timely patient access to lawful and lawfully prescribed medications…

That the new rules prohibit all improper reasons for refusal to dispense medication—permitting only refusals for reasons enumerated in the narrow class of exemptions—suggests that the purpose of the new rules was not to eliminate religious objections to delivery of lawful medicines, but to eliminate all objections that do not ensure patient health, safety, and access to medication. Thus, the rules do not target practices because of their religious motivation.

..a ruling that could force them to dispense abortion pills and euthanasia pills.